"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Since I believe the Flood was global, I believe there was more water on the earth during the Flood than there was when the creation week ended.

Where did all that water go then, after the Flood?

Scripture seems to indicate that God ordered the Flood waters to go to a rendezvous point -- probably for removal from the earth, else the earth would obviously still be underwater.

So again, where did all that water go?

I believe God "siphoned" it off the earth and put it somewhere else in the solar system.

Now it gets interesting.

Since God dosen't do anything haphazardly, I believe He may have put the water ... along with all the "floaties" in it ... on Neptune to serve as some sort of "warning beacon" to rogue angels that may be contemplating visiting us and repeating the events of Genesis 6.

Much like emperors of the past would put victims heads on poles to adorn the entrance to a city as a warning sign of who they were messing with; God may have put the dead bodies of the dinosaurs, humans, giants (nephilim), layers of earth and so on as a "final warning" to these angels.

Just a pet theory of mine that nicely explains:

where the water went after the Flood

why there's no physical evidence of the Flood

meandering rivers

For those who disagree with me about Neptune -- and believe me, I expect them to -- I have a simple question:

Where do you think the waters went?

The water simply went back into the ocean (the flood was a vast local flood from the melting of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age)

Some think the moon was a viable placement (hence its "seas"), some think Mars (hence its "channels"), I think Neptune.

You might as well postulate a trans-dimensional portal to another, alternate earth in another universe. That way you don't have the interference from the pesky science that actually show us what those planets and the moon are made of. Or you might consider transforming the water into dark matter.

Or you might use a planet in a whole other solar system. Why not? Use a worm hole to move it.

C'mon, you haven't read enough science fiction!

RickG · Jun 1, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Glad to hear that! Perhaps you might be interested in reading my books on this topic. Here is the link:

“From Pro-life to Pro-choice,” and “Murder in Paradise”

http://www.lulu.com/shop/nic-samojluk/murder-in-paradise/paperback/product-21623695.html

In the event you prefer not to spend money on them, I am offering to order a gift copy of one of them if you send me your name and mailing address. My email is nic1@inbox.com

Thank you, I will consider it and let you know.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 1, 2015

VirOptimus said:
Science describes physical reality, using religion to debate physical reality is really missing the point IMO and also very unproductive as reality always win out in the end.

This is precisely where modern science went off the correct path in the search for truth when dealing with origins. Science says: “in the beginning the big bang,” which is a non-scientific mystery. The good book says: “in the beginning God, which is a mystery as well.”

Most great science men who preceded modernity had no problem with the supernatural. They did their research in order to understand the way the great designer arranged matter. We can do the same. There is no need to prove the existence of the great designer. His activity is evidenced by what we observe in nature.

Modern science assumes that nature can explain itself. Old science’s premise was that nature provided the evidence for the designer.

Loudmouth · Jun 1, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
This is precisely where modern science went off the correct path in the search for truth when dealing with origins. Science says: “in the beginning the big bang,” which is a non-scientific mystery.

Science says that the universe started out very hot and very dense. We have the evidence for that. It isn't a mystery.

Most great science men who preceded modernity had no problem with the supernatural. They did their research in order to understand the way the great designer arranged matter.

I guess you don't know about the real history of science where new scientific discoveries where thought to be heretical and against one religion or another.

Modern science assumes that nature can explain itself. Old science’s premise was that nature provided the evidence for the designer.

Are you unaware of the spectacular success of science over the last 250 years?

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
You might as well postulate a trans-dimensional portal ...

As me what I think the Ark was, and how it could handle ten times the number of animals that boarded it.

Loudmouth · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
As me what I think the Ark was, and how it could handle ten times the number of animals that boarded it.

We are still waiting for your explanation of the 4.5 billion year history of radioactive decay found in rocks.

bhsmte · Jun 1, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
This is precisely where modern science went off the correct path in the search for truth when dealing with origins. Science says: “in the beginning the big bang,” which is a non-scientific mystery. The good book says: “in the beginning God, which is a mystery as well.”

Most great science men who preceded modernity had no problem with the supernatural. They did their research in order to understand the way the great designer arranged matter. We can do the same. There is no need to prove the existence of the great designer. His activity is evidenced by what we observe in nature.

Modern science assumes that nature can explain itself. Old science’s premise was that nature provided the evidence for the designer.

You have already acknowledged you have little knowledge about science, but are able to state science went off the tracks?

So, if science went off the tracks, tell us about the scientific evidence that supports claims in the bible.

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2015

Loudmouth said:
We are still waiting for your explanation of the 4.5 billion year history of radioactive decay found in rocks.

Embedded Age is maturity without history.

Loudmouth · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Embedded Age is maturity without history.

So you are saying that radiometric dating measures embedded age?

bhsmte · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
As me what I think the Ark was, and how it could handle ten times the number of animals that boarded it.

I'll pass.

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2015

bhsmte said:
I'll pass.

I always say:

If you can't handle the answers, don't ask the questions.

Loudmouth · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I always say:

If you can't handle the answers, don't ask the questions.

So you are saying that radiometric dating measures embedded age?

(I am sensing that your answer will make my point for me)

bhsmte · Jun 1, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I always say:

If you can't handle the answers, don't ask the questions.

I didn't ask, so don't worry about it.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 1, 2015

VirOptimus said:
The evidence does not support this assertion.

Can you identify this common ancestor?

RickG · Jun 1, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Here is one example. BTW, Dr. Roth is a man who shares my views about origins.

‘Flat gaps’ in sedimentary rock layers challenge long geologic ages

Nic, I've read through the article a couple of times and honestly, his argument makes no sense at all. Missing layers of sediment is not a valid argument. It doesn't even deal with radiometric dating, rather erosion rates and where the sediment went. The sediment went into the Pacific Ocean via the Colorado River and by way of the San Andreas fault (a transform fault) has moved north and is off the coast of California. He also keeps throwing out erosion rates and applying them as constants. You can't do that, especially on the scale he is describing. The man is a biologist, not a geologist.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 1, 2015

bhsmte said:
Or, humans evolved to have different abilities.

That is a bigger leap than my mind can grasp!

Nic Samojluk · Jun 1, 2015

RickG said:
The man is a biologist, not a geologist.

Are you a geologist?

AV1611VET · Jun 1, 2015

The man is a biologist, not a geologist.

There you have it, Nic.

NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE

And unless you have the right diploma:

KEEP OFF THE GRASS

RickG · Jun 1, 2015

Nic Samojluk said:
Are you a geologist?

I have an M.S. in Earth Science from the Univ. of Memphis, 1977. The degree focuses on three areas, Geology, Oceanography, and Climatology. My thesis was on the occurrence and causes of ice ages. I also have 25 + years experience as a research chemist. I am well rounded in the areas of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy, Sedimentary Petrology, and Geochemistry.

Nic Samojluk · Jun 1, 2015

RickG said:
So his area is biology, why is he publishing something in the area of sedimentology?

A friend of his challenged him to get into this field, and he accepted this after getting the proper training. Read again his bio.

Ariel Roth
Creationist biologist and geologist
Biography

Ariel A. Roth has published extensively on the creation-evolution issue for over 50 years and is a leading figure in Flood geology. He is a former professor of biology and director of the Geoscience Research Institute at the Loma Linda University in the USA and editor of the scientific journal Origins. Roth has a B.A. in Biology from the Pacific Union College and a M.S. and Ph.D. in biology from the University of Michigan. In addition he has qualifications in radiation biology from the University of California at Berkley and in geology and mathematics from the University of California at Riverside. He is a member of the Geological Society of America and the Society for Sedimentary Geologists. Roth is a prolific author of scientific papers in the fields of biology and geology as well as of the book Origins: Linking Science and Scripture. For more information see interview with Ariel Roth. See also his chapter in In Six Days.

"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Finally Old Enough

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency